An Evaluation of the Underlying Mechanisms of Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Error
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experiment was designed to explore the underlying mechanisms of blood disintegration and its subsequent effect on area of origin (AO) calculations. Blood spatter patterns were created through the controlled application of pressurized air (20-80 kPa) for 0.1 msec onto suspended blood droplets (2.7-3.2 mm diameter). The resulting disintegration process was captured using high-speed photography. Straight-line triangulation resulted in a 50% height overestimation, whereas using the lowest calculated height for each spatter pattern reduced this error to 8%. Incorporation of projectile motion resulted in a 28% height underestimation. The AO xy-coordinate was found to be very accurate with a maximum offset of only 4 mm, while AO size calculations were found to be two- to fivefold greater than expected. Subsequently, reverse triangulation analysis revealed the rotational offset for 26% of stains could not be attributed to measurement error, suggesting that some portion of error is inherent in the disintegration process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it